More than 5,000 people in England and Wales were not fitted with electronic tags despite being required to wear them, according to findings by the Institute for Government (IfG) reported by The Guardian. The figures cover January to April 2026 and represent 15% of all those subject to electronic monitoring orders.
The report also identifies problems with devices that had been fitted. According to the findings cited, almost 1,600 people wore tags that did not transmit a signal to the monitoring system for two weeks because of technical faults or a failure to charge them. This was a separate problem from tags not being fitted: wearing a device did not necessarily mean that monitoring was working.
The failure to fit tags does not, however, establish that there was a shortage of devices in stock. Nor does it automatically mean that those affected were subject to no supervision at all. Responding to the report’s findings, the government stressed that electronic devices are only one of its supervision tools.
Monitoring failures and staffing shortages
The IfG analysis, based on public data and interviews with frontline staff involved in supervision, describes wider difficulties across the system. The institute concludes that electronic monitoring was performing poorly and failing to meet demand, while staffing shortages were limiting probation supervision — the oversight of people serving sentences or remaining under supervision outside prison.
According to the findings reported by The Guardian, no probation unit inspected in 2024 or 2025 received a rating higher than “requires improvement”. Two-thirds were rated “inadequate”.
The IfG recommends gradually increasing probation staffing. It also proposes a clearer model setting out how much of a sentence is served in prison and how much under supervision in the community. These are recommendations from the report, not an announcement that new rules have come into force.
Government pledges investment and recruitment
A government spokesperson quoted by The Guardian pledged to expand electronic monitoring, invest in the probation service and recruit thousands of new officers. The government also pointed to other available controls: restrictions on contact, compulsory meetings with probation officers, residence conditions and the possibility of recall to prison.
The government’s response therefore highlights supervision beyond electronic tags alone. The IfG’s findings, however, concern the effectiveness of a specific, required tool: in some cases, devices were not fitted; in others, tags being worn were not transmitting a signal.
